Simple. If an alleged rape is turned over to the police, then criminal prosecution standards will apply. Evidence is gathered, testimony is obtained and - most importantly - a presumption of innocence applies.

This leads to what the proponents of these alternative proceedings believe is an insufficient number of convictions. Accusers could have to continue to see the people they have accused on campus, with no sanctions taken against them. And legal proceedings do not comply with the Title IX directives handed down from the Obama Administration, which says that the standard should be “a preponderance of evidence” - 50% + - rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” in such cases. So to apply this lower standard and to raise the number of convictions and penalties against the accused, these alternative proceedings are being used.

Fortunately, there are more and more accused who, once having been sanctioned by such proceedings, are using Title IX itself to sue the schools - and win. It seems that Title IX says that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. It had not occurred to anyone that such language means that you cannot discriminate against men anymore than you can discriminate against women. That seems an unnatural concept to them - but the courts say differently.

Notice how all these solutions do everything they can to ensure the money keeps flowing without cessation to the schools and without any accountability or responsibility on the schools’ part. God forbid they might have to fire an Associate Dean for Diversity.

“... and get arrested for it because they slept with someone as drunk as they were.”

That’s not the problem. The problem is that they DON’T get arrested. What the colleges do is have a Star Chamber proceeding and expel the male student involved regardless of what he says or what witnesses say. The student is not allowed to have legal counsel and is often not allowed to face or question his accuser. Sometimes he doesn’t even get to be present. At least one school has it as official policy that if both students are drunk and have sex, it is automatically the male’s fault.

Male students are fighting back. It has been noticed that Title IX is sex-neutral - it says that schools cannot treat the two sexes differently. It does not say that females always get preference. Male students who have been expelled in such proceedings are filing Title IX suits - and winning.

That’s right. They’re indispensible to them so that they can continue to make massive bonuses while paying their employees lousy pay.

And the funny thing is that the Democrats - who normally are the ones pushing for higher wages, unions, etc., will go along with this - because getting more people into this country that buy into “It’s the government’s job to take care of me” is more important than everything they SAY they’re for.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what happens. My theory is that a lot of celebrities have had something like this happen to them, and that’s what has sparked them to enter the performing arts - it gives them a way to act out anger, sadness, etc. while not actually being themselves.

Push the minimum wage to $26? Great idea. I think California should do just that. That should force businesses out of the state, followed by their workers. The number of House representatives from California and their looniness would then drop.

I take issue with your phrase “reverse racist”. Racism is giving preference or attributing certain characteristics to one race over another. Which race you’re talking about and what the race is of the person doing the talking is immaterial.

Mathematically I would say that racism is a scalar vector (”You’re going 100 miles an hour.”) vs. a vector one (”You’re going 100 miles an hour due north.”). The discrimination is the issue. The direction doesn’t matter.

I always go back to the story about the adulteress who was to be stoned by the mob. Jesus stopped them from condemning her to death and stoning her. But he told her to go and sin no more.

Many on the left read the words “neither do I condemn you” and use the modern definition to read it as “neither do I criticize you”. Then they leave out “go and sin no more” entirely. He didn’t tell her that what she was doing was no longer a sin now that he had come into the world to save it.

This is also the answer to those who say “Well, if we are to apply Biblical law to homosexuality, why don’t we sell our daughters into slavery if they have extra-marital sex?” It’s because we are to condemn the sin but not the sinner. Forgive them - but tell them that it’s still sinful and they need to stop.

The schools have whored themselves out to TV money and fame. Now they’re getting called on it. Note that this would only involve Division I schools. Division II and III schools, who really do put the “scholar” in “scholar-athlete” first are unaffected. Dump athletic tuition waivers (I refuse to call them “scholarships” since there is no actual scholarship involved) and this problem goes away. So do coaches making $1,000,000 a year, of course, and the NFL and NBA have to create their own minor leagues (like baseball and hockey), but too bad for them.

I wonder if this will cause any schools to drop from Division I to Division II or III?

Here's something a lot more chilling in the comments. The writer is responding to someone who invoked the right of the protestors to do so under the First Amendment and states that the academic involved thus violated those protestors' Constitutional rights:

If you can read, please pick up a copy of the United States constitution- that, or just do some simple web search. The first amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to free speech without direct government intervention. Citizens are guaranteed the opportunity to voice their opinions on public property- like the free speech area at UCSB. But private citizens also have the right to evaluate free speech, and if needed, remove its platform and speaker under the first amendment. In other words, freedom of speech ONLY pertains to direct government intervention. Mireille acted as a private citizen, in the defense of other private citizens. There isnt a case here.

So apparently the commentor believes that private citizens have a right to prevent other private citizens from speaking in a public space if in their judgement removal of the speaker and the platform they are using for speech is "needed".

This may not be a popular viewpoint here, but - I do think it’s reasonable to treat the case of someone who was brought here at the age of 9 by his parents differently than the case of someone who came here as an adult illegally. I’m certainly glad to see that the Florida Supreme Court understands that their role is to follow the law, not write new law.

My view on this kind of thing would be that if a child is brought here by their parents they - but not their parents - would have some kind of defined path to citizenship that would include steps to ensure that the child has successfully integrated into and adopted American culture (which would disqualify having graduated from college being considered a positive step in any such law). Military service (yes, it’s perfectly legal for a non-citizen to join the U.S. Military), facility in English (both conversational and written), a work history, lack of criminal history, etc.

I strongly oppose ANY path to citizenship by anyone who came here illegally at the age 18 and over, regardless of any of the above criteria (except possibly military service).

I’m waiting for a definition of “person of color”. Usually when I ask I don’t get a definition, I get my motives attacked for asking. I’ve got a great-great-grandmother and a great-great-great-grandmother of African origin. Am I a “person of color”? According to the “one-drop” rule, I am.

I’d rate them low, too. They’re doing a lousy job of telling the public what’s going on. There should be a bill in the hands of the Senate right now appropriating the money for making all necessary payments on Treasury bonds and the rest of the public debt. The GOP leadership should be going on all the news shows, talk shows, late night shows and telling people all about it. Examples of the bills passed in previous years that Democratic Congresses have killed should be publicized. They’ve got a golden opportunity here and they’re completely blowing it.

Hang on - it may be that she’s got a point. If the law was simply rewritten to state that courts may not take the religious doctrines of any particular denomination and justify rulings based on them this would be covered and you’d avoid discriminating against any particular religion - as was mentioned in the article with regards to a similar law in a different state that did not call out Sharia specifically.

A professor at the University of Central Florida, whose comments about Muslim culture created controversy, gave a speech Tuesday night in the Board of County Commissions chamber, something that is upsetting a Florida organization. More than 130 people showed up to the monthly meeting to hear from Jonathan Matusitz, a UCF professor

O.K. A professor at UCF spoke at the Board of County Commissioner's chamber.

CAIR posted a video clip to YouTube from what looks to be a UCF lecture in June.

Not from his speech in the chamber - a speech at another time and place. So how can they characterize his speech at the chamber? Or is it that once someone makes any statement that opposes them, they must be silenced in every venue?

CAIR released this statement saying, ACT! for America and Mr. Matusitz are free to spew their anti-Muslim hate in any private venue they choose, but offering them a taxpayer-funded platform creates the perception that county officials endorse their extremist views.

That's right. It's a taxpayer-funded platform. The fact that a taxpayer gets to use it doesn't mean that the county officials endorse their views. It means that taxpayers get to use it regardless of their views and regardless of what the county officials think of them. County officials have no business defining what's extremist and what's not.

Historically we have not taken a stand on what types of discussion groups can or cant have in our buildings, said spokesman Don Walker, adding thats part of someones First Amendment rights.

Holy crap! A public official that understands the First Amendment? I'm sure CAIR and other such groups will do their best to unseat him as soon as possible.

"Its a free country.

As opposed to the countries where Islamist regimes control the government.

CAIR said if ACT! can have a meeting in the county building, then they can, too, which is something they plan to organize in the next few weeks.

If the county can fit it into the schedule along with any previously scheduled committments they should have a perfect right to do so.

O.K. I’ve read here more than once “These men were out of radio contact”. Something’s wrong with that. What would it cost to give these guys better radios? Most radios I’ve seen for cops, etc. are UHF or VHF bands. Would HF radios have better range or ability to overcome the terrain? What about satellite links?

Any answer she gives to any question, and anything in the content of her statement under oath CAN be used against her. But giving the statement does not mean that she waived her right to invoke the 5th amendment to any subsequent question.

"You dont get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination." Actually, you do. You can certainly pick and choose which questions you answer and which ones you invoke your 5th Amendment rights for and refuse to answer. The mistake was for the committee to permit her to make a statement without responding to any questions.

The thing is, this is not news. It was well publicized a couple of years ago that Steve Jobs and President Obama met and had a discussion about various aspects of American manufacturing. President Obama asked Steve Jobs to bring that money back into the U.S. and Steve Jobs told him that the money was NEVER coming back into the U.S, and why.

The suspect never had to say a word to them. You do not gain your right against self-incrimination when they read you your rights, you have them all along. And I find it hard to believe that someone who’s gotten to 19 years old in this country does not know that.

These days you need a credit card as almost a financial ID. Try to rent a hotel room or a car without providing one - or a major power tool (say, a ditch witch). Even if you intend to pay cash, you have to leave the credit card so that if you trash the room or wreck the tool the renter has something to charge damages against.

As far as the people running Colorado think, I’m sure they’re figuring “Don’t let the door hit you on the rear on the way out. There go a bunch of GOP votes we don’t have to worry about anymore.” The loss of jobs and revenue likely doesn’t concern them much.

Ever since this news cycle started the press has presented each step of the process as meaning that the Boy Scouts are going to make a policy change. They consistently want to keep any possibility that it might NOT change out of people’s minds. And now that the proposal has come to light, the gay activists are NOT happy - as it does not require Scout units to register gay adults.

This is no accident, folks. This was planned. This is how we get to government-run single-payer health insurance - by making it too expensive for private businesses to provide insurance to their employees.

I have a related question. How many bullets/shells were manufactured over the same time period (broken out by military and civilian use if possible)? The reason I ask is because people who wish to restrict 2nd Amendment rights talk about guns as if their primary purpose or use is to kill people. I’d like to be able to show them that some figure such as 99.99% of all ammunition is used for recreation. I figure I take the number of people wounded or killed during crimes committed with the use of guns, multiply it by some fudge factor to account for missed shots (say, 1.5) and then divide that by the total amount of ammunition sold in the U.S. during that time period. I can do the same thing with guns to show that only a miniscule number of guns were used for the same purpose.

People like Mr. Madigan often cite the number of deaths that involve the use of guns. But what they don't cite is a very-well conducted study by Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University here which shows that there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of uses of guns for self-defense every year. This was NOT funded by the NRA or similar organizations, and Prof. Kleck is a very accomplished researcher in the field.

“When I was in Scouts, our most popular form of hazing was swiping the clothes of fellow scouters, tossing them up in a tree then seeing the owner climb up after them.”

When I was a Scout the deal was to grab clothing that had been left where it should not have been left and running it up the flagpole at night, where it would be discovered by the Troop when they assembled for flag raising the next morning.

Eagle projects do not have to involve the entire Troop. They don’t have to involve anyone from the Troop, although it is certainly customary. They do have to involve enough other people that the Eagle candidate has to demonstrate leadership of those people, as opposed to doing all or the majority of the work himself.

I’m a little suspicious of “His Scoutmaster refused to sign off on his project” as well. If the project was completed the Scoutmaster should sign off on the project workbook’s completion form. However, after the project is completed the Scoutmaster would then - as part of the standard requirements for Eagle - have a Scoutmaster conference with the Scout to review his progress and accomplishments to that point and then sign off that the Scout fulfills the Scout Oath, Law and Spirit in his daily life on the Eagle Scout Rank application. THAT I can see the Scoutmaster in this case would not sign.

The B.S.A.’s policy is that “avowed homosexuals” are not to be registered in Scouting. Basically, if you come out publicly you are not longer eligible to be in the B.S.A. The policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is strictly enforced; there is at least one instance of a Scout having been asked, tossed out, and then reinstated by National. But what we see here is that this young man put it in writing to his Scoutmaster that he was gay. At that point he became ineligible - but not before.

Eagle Scouts do not automatically become an adult leader on their 18th birthday, nor does any Scout. They have to fill out an Adult application just like anyone else. It’s pretty common, though, that Scouts who have stayed in their Troop through their 18th birthday are encouraged to become Assistant Scoutmasters.

The reporters probably don’t know the difference between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and are way too left-wing to bother to check facts and find out something about Scouting before they write their report.

That “tolerance wall” doesn’t look like much of a project. What kind of leadership and planning effort did he have to put into it?

Actually, the dancers in the Elton John bit were dressed as Cub Scouts, not Boy Scouts. For what it’s worth, it’s possible for young men in the Boy Scout program to be over the age of consent - but not children in the Cub Scout program.

The EU is effectively bankrupt. That will affect us not only because they are a major market for us but because we have bought a lot of their debt. What I would ask my banker is, “Why did you buy their debt”?